Getting back to higher ground on the terror debate

Usually the regional breakouts are the numbers to watch in the EKOS/iPolitics poll. But this week’s storyline is in the attitudinal data on identity and security issues, partly driven by events — but largely manipulated by the Harper government.

The niqab wasn’t an issue at all until a federal court ruled last month it was “unlawful” of the government to prevent a Toronto-area woman, Zunera Ishaq, from wearing one at a citizenship swearing-in ceremony. Appearing in the Quebec secularist heartland of Victoriaville, Stephen Harper immediately said the government would appeal and, in both languages, added: “I think most Canadians believe that it is offensive that someone would hide their identity at the very moment they are joining the Canadian family.”

For good measure, in the Commons last week, he said the niqab is “rooted in a culture that is anti-women”.

Coincidentally, a woman named Rania El-Alloul appeared in a Quebec Court in Montreal wearing a hijab as she sought the release of her impounded car. “I will not hear you,” Judge Eliana Marenga told her, “if you are wearing a headscarf on your head, just as I would not allow a person to appear before me wearing a hat or sunglasses.” Hmm, what about a kippa, or a nun wearing a veil and a crucifix?

Respondents were asked whether niqabs should be permitted at citizenship ceremonies. By a margin of 64-29 per cent, Canadians said they shouldn’t be allowed. And Quebecers said no by 79 per cent to 18 — by far the highest margin in the country.

By party preference across Canada, 58 per cent of Liberal voters, 62 per cent voting NDP and 79 per cent of Conservative supporters were opposed to the niqab at citizenship swearing-in ceremonies.

Meanwhile, in a half-sample of 1,500 respondents, Canadians were asked whether there were “too few, too many or about the right number of immigrants coming to Canada”. Only 13 per cent said “too few”, 35 per said “about right” — while fully 46 per cent said “too many”.

Welcome to Canada. That certainly got everyone’s attention on social media during a slow parliamentary break week.

Moving along to the security issue, EKOS asked how Canadians felt about the allied mission against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Fully 60 per cent said they supported it, up five points from mid-February, while only 33 per cent opposed it, down four points from last month. It was much closer in Quebec, where the split was 50-42 per cent in favour of the mission. On the question of extending the mission, the numbers closed up somewhat, to 54-38 per cent in favour, and 50-43 per cent in Quebec.

It’s one thing to defend the national interest and the safety of our citizens; that’s a prime minister’s job. He can frame those issues as he sees them — provided he doesn’t cross a line into the politics of division and fear.

It should be noted that EKOS was in the field during the death and repatriation of Sgt. Andrew Doiron, the Canadian special forces soldier killed in a friendly-fire incident by Kurdish allies on the ground in northern Iraq. It’s possible his death may have been a factor in lower support numbers for extending the mission beyond April 7.

Then EKOS asked respondents if they’d heard of Bill C-51, which the government has styled the Anti-Terrorism Act. Only 45 per cent said they had. That was after weeks of saturation coverage, though before last Saturday’s demonstrations against the bill across Canada. Among the 45 per cent who knew about it, 56 per cent supported C-51, against 42 per cent who opposed it. Support was strongest in Quebec at 61-36 per cent in favour.

In terms of party preference, 51 per cent of Liberals, 40 per cent of NDP voters and 79 per cent of Conservatives supported C-51.

These numbers tell you everything you need to know about why the Harper government is bundling the identity and security issues together as one. It’s one thing to defend the national interest and the safety of our citizens; that’s a prime minister’s job. He can frame those issues as he sees them — provided he doesn’t cross a line into the politics of division and fear.

When the House returns next week, it has two things to deal with before rising for the Easter break on April 2. One is a vote on extending the mission against ISIS. The other is wrapping the C-51 hearings and getting the bill on its way to the Senate.

In interviews, Defence Minister Jason Kenney has not ruled out extending Canada’s air strikes to Syria, where the Americans and other allies have been bombing ISIS targets. But Harper told the House last October that Canada wouldn’t send Canadian forces into a country without an invitation. In this case, we have not been invited by Bashar al-Assad, whose regime has been waging war on its own people for four years.

The prime minister needs to address this and other issues, including the duration and nature of the extended mission. A six-month mission extension from April 7 would take the issue off the table and allow it to be addressed by the next government, whoever forms it. The Liberals and NDP might have to support that.

But let’s at least agree to have this debate on high ground, in the kind of conversation that occurred Monday on CBC’s Power & Politics, where Rosemary Barton guided three MPs in a debate that was both informed and cordial. It’s much to the credit of Conservative James Bezan, Liberal Joyce Murray and the NDP’s Craig Scott that they treated each other and the issue with the kind of respect called for in the circumstances.

As for C-51, the first part of the bill is called the “Security of Canada Information Act”. But Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien has not been invited to appear as a witness. How does that work? Some other witnesses against the bill, having travelled to Ottawa to appear before the public safety committee, have been belittled by government members.

Still, eight days in committee ought to be enough. And in the world of the Canadian compromise, its passage would be much easier if the Conservatives only amended the bill to allow for civilian oversight of the kind the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) has over the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS). It’s a no-brainer.

On the identity issue, Harper might want to give Zunera Ishaq a wide berth. In an elegant op-ed in the Toronto Star on Monday she wrote: “I’m not looking for Mr. Harper to approve my life style or choices.” As for Rania El Alloul, she politely declined a crowdfunding donation of $50,000 to buy her a new car. She just wants her old one back.

These are clear-minded, clear-spoken women, who remind us that Canada is a nation of immigrants. And it’s a better one for their presence here.

L. Ian MacDonald is editor of Policy, the bi-monthly magazine of Canadian politics and public policy. He is the author of five books. He served as chief speechwriter to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney from 1985-88, and later as head of the public affairs division of the Canadian Embassy in Washington from 1992-94.The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

9 comments on “Getting back to higher ground on the terror debate”

A few points on Mr. MacDonald’s op-ed:
1. It often happens that the PM’s reply to the press is termed as an official important “announcement” whereas in fact it is merely a reaction to a question. The PM’s reaction to the niqab ruling by Judge Keith Boswell was that, a reaction to a question. See the video in the Feb. 12 CBC report titled “Niqab-citizenship ceremony ruling will be appealed, PM says”. Am I splitting hairs? No, I don’t think so. The media and the PM’s opponents (some might same they’re one and the same) make it sound as if the PM chose to address the niqab issue in Victoriaville, which appears to not be the case.

2. It was not made clear that the PM disagreed with Judge Marengo’s refusal to hear Ms. El Alloul’s case. The PM has expressed objection to the wearing of the niqab (face-covering veil) in the citizenship ceremony setting, NOT to the wearing of the hijab (head-covering scarf). See the Feb 27 CBC report titled “Hijab-wearing woman should be allowed to testify, Harper spokesman says”.

3. Some critics say the niqab issue is being used by the PM to pander to his base but they forget that former Liberal leaders Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff both opposed the face-covering niqab in dealing with government services (Ignatieff) and at election time (Dion). Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella in a blog titled “I don’t recall anyone in caucus objecting to what he said about the niqab” stated:
“Personally, I have always been a Liberal who opposed the anti-niqab hysteria, as here.
I sure don’t recall many other Liberals saying the same thing, at the time. And I particularly don’t remember any member of caucus – say, the one from Papineau – echoing my view, either.” So it appears that Mr. Trudeau agreed with his then-leader.
Could the Liberal position on the niqab have changed for electoral considerations or pandering? Perish the thought!

Yes, yes, we know you’re a fan of Eric Margolis, so keep limiting your horizon to one pundit, if you wish.

As for Mr. MacDonald being an “apologist” you’ve obviously read the op-ed with your preconceived notions. Mr. MacDonald is a respected commentator on politics who does not shy away from criticizing the current Conservative government, or any other political player, whenever that is justified, in his opinion. His columns are usually quite informative. I may not always agree with his conclusions but I appreciate his well-versed analyses.

And me? I admit wholeheartedly to being a partisan of the Conservatives. However, instead of just spouting opinions against opponents, be they members of political parties or other commenters on forums such as this one, I try to document my posts from various sources, countering what I view are misrepresentations of my party. So call me an “apologist” if that floats your boat.

The problem is there are a lot of people from across the political spectrum who do not believe we should support in any way the use of the Niqab in Canada (myself included). The opposition to Harper need to get the attention back to the economy, the lack of accountability and ethics, the dismantling of democracy etc.. there are no votes to win on this issue but there are many to lose